Friday, January 14, 2011

Interview with Springer’s Derk Haank

My interview with Derk Haank, CEO of Springer Science+Business Media has been published in the January issue of Information Today, and can be read here:

Below are a few quotes from Haank taken from the interview.

On the Big Deal:

“The Big Deal is the best invention since sliced bread. I agree that there was once a serial pricing problem; I have never denied there was a problem. But it was the Big Deal that solved it.

“The truth is that it is in the interests of everyone—publishers and librarians—to keep the Big Deal going.”

On the serials crisis:

“The serials crisis refers to a situation that existed at the end of the 1990s, when we saw big increases well above inflation. Those days are long gone, and I strongly feel that our products now offer value for money. In fact, the cost per unit has fallen, and in the last 10 years, libraries have gotten more and more for the same money.”

On future price increases:

“Look, the reality is that our journals are growing in volume by 6% to 7% per year. We have been doing all that is possible over the last couple of years, and will continue to do so to ensure that our price increases are lower than the volume increases. But not increasing our prices is not an option in the long term.

“Librarians need to accept that if they want access to a continually growing database, then costs will need to go up a little bit but not like in the days of the serials crisis. We try to accommodate our customers, but at a certain point, we will hit a wall.”

On whether there is a structural problem in the scholarly publishing market, and the likelihood that the research community might at some point no longer be able to afford to keep paying publishers’ prices:

“I don't believe there is a structural problem, and things will not fall apart. There are always countervailing forces. I don't believe that our pricing is a big problem, and I am sure that this market can carry on indefinitely. As I say, I accept that there was once a problem. But today, we can't give libraries access to any more journals because they already have access to all they could ever want.

“Of course, if you predict that the whole world is about to collapse, it is possible that it may do so. However, over time, I expect people will realize that scientists have to have sufficient funding to keep abreast of new developments.”

On why Haank believes Open Access will remain a niche activity:

“I expect it to remain between 5% and 10% at a maximum … Because there simply isn't enough incentive to change the system. Most people who need access to research information are much better off today than they were 10 to 15 years ago. Things might not be perfect, and some believe we ought to take the ultimate step and publish everything open access, but the reality is that—outside the biomedical field—most people just don't see a sufficient problem for OA to become a big movement.”

On whether OA publishing is cheaper than subscription publishing:

“OA makes no material difference to pricing because most of the functions remain exactly the same. You could argue that OA allows you to dispense with print costs, but even under the subscription model, there is hardly any print anymore.

“Likewise, you could argue that you don't have to sell subscriptions with OA publishing. But OA requires selling institutional memberships. So whether the library pays for the system through subscriptions, or the institution pays author charges via membership schemes, it makes not a jot of difference to the overall costs in the end.”

On why Springer lobbies against self-archiving mandates (Green OA):

“[B]ecause OA mandates institutionalise the process of author archiving, and if the delay between publication and archiving is only a couple of months, then there is a real danger of destroying the equilibrium that we have achieved over OA.

“The compromise that we have reached is to keep the traditional subscription system while combining it with pure OA, plus a little bit of Green. In my view, that model is good enough, and it is really not worth risking it by introducing mandatory OA policies requiring papers to be made freely available within 6 months.”

2 comments:

For researchers in the developing world wanting to keep abreast of research progress, the statements made by Haank below show a complete lack of awareness of the reality. And this in turn demonstrates a lack of awareness of (or concern for) the consequences for scientific progress if the work in low income countries is weakened through lack of access. An international picture is critical for solving such global problems as malaria, climate change . . . the list goes on.

'But today, we can't give libraries access to any more journals because they already have access to all they could ever want.'

“The serials crisis refers to a situation that existed at the end of the 1990s. . ."

". . . Most people who need access to research information are much better off today than they were 10 to 15 years ago."

With the current economic environment, it is not only the poorer countries that will find these comments unrealistic.

@ Barbara Kirsop - the Research4Life programme is a collaborative approach by publishers and other organisations (including the WHO, FAO, UNEP, Cornell and Yale Universities) to solving the developing world access issue in a constructive manner: http://www.research4life.org/